[ANN] Babelmark

Tomas Doran bobtfish at bobtfish.net
Sun Mar 23 08:13:08 EDT 2008

On 23 Mar 2008, at 03:50, Michel Fortin wrote:

> Le 2008-03-22 à 21:15, Fletcher T. Penney a écrit :


>> Any reason for including Text::MultiMarkdown and not the official

>> MultiMarkdown itself?


> Hum, because I just took what was bundled with Text::Markdown; it

> was easier that way and I though it was the same thing just

> packaged differently. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

It's the same thing in the same way that Text::Markdown is "just
markdown, packaged differently".


>> It would be useful for finding any areas where the two versions

>> differ from each other, in addition to where MMD differs from

>> other implementations.


> But should we expect any difference? I agree that I should be using

> the official MultiMarkdown -- and I've added it now --, but is it

> still worth keeping Text::MultiMarkdown then?


Yes, please also keep Text::MultiMarkdown. This is actually *much
more* different to fletcher's MultiMarkdown than Text::Markdown is to
Markdown.pl - as with my refactoring, MultiMarkdown is able to just
overload / hook into Text::Markdown (as I've created the relevant
hook points), as opposed to being a copy & paste of original markdown
with bits stuck on the side.. (No offense meant here - I'm only able
to do this as I'm *also* maintaining a fork of Markdown).

Again, I'm aiming form *zero difference* between Text::MultiMarkdown
and 'official' MultiMarkdown, except for bugs that I've fixed (so we
shouldn't *expect* difference, and if it's found, and I don't have
an explicit test in my distribution to cover it - it's a bug in my
code and I *will fix it*).. My code does pass all of Fletcher's test
suite, so I'm sure it's pretty similar. ;)

As previously noted, s/MultiMarkdown/Markdown/g; s/Fletcher/John/g;
in the paragraph above is also be true.


More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list